. A. ID D lE^ El S S 



BEFORE THE 



Union league in t|e 2lt| Wi] 




PHILADELPHIA, 



OPENING CELEBRATION, MAY 9, 1863, 



IV. B. BROWIVE, T:SQ. 




LORD LYONS IN COUNCIL 




WITH THE 



NEW YORK DEMOCRACY. 



PHILADELPHIA: 
PRINTED FOR GRATUITOUS DISTRIBUTION. 

1863. 




THE NAMES— GIVE US THE NAMES! 



To the Editor of the New York Times : 

Lord Lyons, in his letter to Earl Russell, of the 17th of Novem- 
ber last, which, fortunately for the cause of truth, though doubtless 
by mevQ oversight, has beea published, presents to us the degrading 
spectacle of mevi, assviming to be our " leaders " and so representing 
themselves to him, crouching and cringing at the feet of British royalty 
and bowing the knee to one of the subordinates of that power. To 
use his own words : 

" On my arrival in New York several of the Democratic leaders sought 
interviews ivith me. The subject uppermost in their minds, when they were 
talking with me, was foreign mediation between the North and South." 
" They seemed to think that this mediation must come at last, but they 
were very much afraid of its coming too soon ; they apjjrehended that a 
premature proposal of foreign intervention -would afford the means of re- 
viving the war spirit and thus defeating the peaceful plans." "I listened 
with attention to the accounts they gave me of the j^lans and hopes of the 
Democratic party, and I perceived a desire to put an end to the war, even 
at the risk of losing the Southern States altogether ; but they did not think 
it prudent to avoio this desire; and, indeed, some hints of it, dropped be- 
fore tlie elections, were so ill received, that a strong declaration to the con- 
trary was deemed necessary by the Democratic leaders." " If their own 
imrty were in power, they would accept an offer of mediation." " In the 
offer they would desire as little prominence as possible to be given to Great 
Britain." " My own opinion is, that the present is not a favorable mo- 
ment for making an offer of mediation ; it might embarrass the Democra- 
tic party, and oblige them, in order to maintain their popularity, to make 
home public declaration against it, and thus make it difficult for them to 
accept a similar offer at a more jyrojntious time." " It is, indeed,, urged 
by some that mediation should be offered for the jnirpose oj clearing the 
ivay to a reooonitiox of the Southern Confederacy." 

But, his " Lordship," not being so deeply imbued with enmity to 
our Government and with sympathy for rebellion as were the " Demo- 
cratic leaders," says, "/do not see the advantage of this." And, 
finally, this English emissary, fresh from his secret conferences with 
these " Democratic leaders," says : 

" I had heard it mentioned that Great Britain should recognize the in- 
dependence of the South, as far as possible, with a vino to impede the 
efforts to reconstruct the Union. The advocates of this opinion consider a 

\_See lli.ir<l I'Uje cf cover. ■ 



AN ADDRESS 



SELITERBD BEFORE THE 



UNION LEAGUE IN THE 24th WARD 



CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 



OPENING CELEBRATION, MAY 9, 1863, 



■ J^.t 






PSESIDEKT OF THE LBAaUS. 



PUBLISHED BY THE LEAGUE, 
1863. 



ADDEESS. 



Gentlemen of the Union League. — On the 1st of March, 
1781, it was announced that Articles of Confederation and per- 
petual Union had been finally ratified and adopted by the 
thirteen States then engaged in the common struggle of the 
Revolution. This event filled the whole land with joy. During 
the seven years of the war of Independence which had elapsed, 
the Continental Congress had afibrded what was at best but 
a provisional government, and the necessity for another that 
should unite more efiectively and permanently the will, re- 
sources and power of the whole country, was not only recog- 
nized, but it was solemnly declared by Congress itself that the 
safety, indeed the very independence of the people depended 
upon it. Thus, finally, after the slow process of debate in 
State Legislatures had yielded to the pressure of events, and 
with the adjustment of the territorial question, and the long- 
delayed assent of Maryland, came the solemn and formal 
ratification of the form of government, known as the Articles 
of Confederation. 

And when we look into these Articles of Confederation, we 
find the perpetuity of the Union was agreed upon and de- 
clared in the most solemn manner, and with a frequency of 
repetition which, in such an instrument, is as singular as it is 
impressive. 

The first object stated in the opening recital is a " perpetual 
Union" between the States; and in the final article it is de- 
clared that "the Union shall be perpetual." In the formal 
ratification, after acknowledging, with devout gratitude, that 
the great Governor of the world had inclined the hearts of the 
people to a "perpetual Union," the delegates proceeded to 



ratify and confirm the Articles of Confederation and ^^per- 
petual Union;'' and then, as if to aflfix the very seal and 
sanction of the people to this compact, they further solemnly 
plighted and engaged the faith of their respective constituents 
that these articles should be inviolably observed by the States, 
and — mark the final and impressive repetition — " that the 
Union shall be perpetual." 

Five times, in this brief plan of government, is the idea of 
the perpetuity of the Union repeated in all the varied phrases of 
formal recital, solemn declaration, devout gratitude and plighted 
faith ! Thus were these sovereign States indissolubly united. 

If, then, this government commenced as a perpetual 
compact of Union, the question may be put most per- 
tinently here, when and how did it cease to be so ? 
Never were the doctrines of State rights and State sove- 
reignty better understood or more insisted upon than by 
the men who formed the Articles of Confederation. The 
Union, as they established it, evidently was intended to last ; 
and although the several members of the confederacy made 
but sparing concessions of power to the general government, 
they did not intend to leave it in any doubt, that it was not to 
be a mere loose alliance, that might fall to pieces, in the centre 
or at the extremities, upon the whim of any of its members. 

When and how, let the inquiry be repeated, was this bond 
of permanent Union lost, and this rope of sand, as some would 
make it, substituted ? 

Certainly not in the present Constitution, adopted in 1789 ; 
for the first and leading object stated in that instrument was 
to form "a more perfect Union." And it is diflScult to con- 
ceive how a perpetual Union could be made more perfect by 
being changed into a mere partnership at will. Whatever 
modifications may have been "introduced by it into the grant or 
definition of the powers of the general government ; whatever 
re-arrangemement or division of executive, legislative and ju- 
dicial functions may have occurred, one thing is certain, that 
the unanimous compact of perpetual Union, as originally 



formed, not only continued, but, in the very nature of things, 
all right of amendment as to its duration was excluded. 

Indeed, everything about the present Constitution implies 
permanency. Its change of style, from Articles of Confedera- 
tion to Constitution, carries with it the idea of a government 
with increased rights and authority ; its arrangement and 
division of powers is that of a self-sustaining, supreme and in- 
dependent authority; the guarantees, in this fundamental law, 
of a republican form of government to each State, and to each 
citizen, of equal rights, protection and participation in the 
government, necessarily imply continuing authority and per- 
manent supremacy. The reservation to the Federal govern- 
ment of the absolute control and disposition of the territories ; 
the erection of a supreme judicial tribunal for the settlement 
of all controversies between the States, or to which they may 
be parties ; indeed, every grant, and many of the restrictions 
of power, indicate, in the clearest possible form, a government 
of supreme and enduring authority, and one having not only 
the right, but the constitutional power, to enforce obedience, 
not only on the part of the private citizen, but of the sovereign 
State. 

The perpetuity of the Union was not more clearly declared 
and repeated in the articles of Confederation than its indis- 
soluble permanency is guaranteed, we may say, made possible, 
in that plan of " more perfect Union," contained in the present 
Constitution. 

That Union, the foundations of which Hancock and Adams, 
Ellery and Sherman, Morrjs and Lee, and other statesmen and 
patriots of that period, laid secure and deep in the equal rights 
of the individual, and the walls of which they strengthened by 
the buttresses of State rights — that Union was intended to out- 
live the differences of interest, feeling and section which even 
then distracted the land ; perpetuity was inscribed on every 
part of it, from corner stone to pinnacle. And afterwards, 
when Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, Benjamin 
Franklin, and, greatest of all, George Washington, with the 
other master builders and architects who remodeled the edifice 



of the Union, gave us the present Constitution, they left it un- 
disturbed in foundation and wall and buttress ; they only 
adapted it to the growing family of States, added new guaran- 
tees of individual and State rights, and rendered its perman- 
ency possible, by furnishing tribunals of high and last resort, 
where the sovereign State as well as the humblest citizen could 
adjust their controversies. It is inconceivable that these latter 
should receive the structure of the Union as declared in its 
fundamental law — inviolable, and perpetual — and leave it inco- 
hering, tottering and ephemeral, as the advocates of the right 
of secession would contend. No hint or suggestion of such an 
inherent weakness is to be found in either the Articles of Con- 
federation or the present Constitution ; on the contrary, abun- 
dant evidence is to be found in both, and in the writings and 
State papers of that day, that the men of the Revolution felt 
that they were engaged upon a work that was to endure. It 
has been reserved for these latter days that the right of seces- 
sion, as it is termed, should be formally announced, and for 
this monstrous rebellion to illustrate the fatal mischief and 
direful consequences of such a doctrine. 

It is the twin-brother of that equally absurd but short-lived 
doctrine of nullification. In each of them the spirit of rebel- 
lion, clothing itself in State Sovereignty, assumes the right to 
annul the law, subvert the Constitution, and destroy the Union. 
To both of them we may apply the words of Andrew Jackson, 
in his memorable proclamation, that they are not only " incom- 
patible with the Union," but " contradicted expressly by the 
letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsis- 
tent with every principle on which it is founded, and destruc- 
tive of the great object for which it was formed." 

But the heresies of Calhoun have prevailed in the South 
against the counsels of Washington ; and the injunctions of 
Jefferson, and Jackson, and Clay, have all been forgotten in 
the mad career of sectionalism of which such men as Davis, 
and Rhett, and Slidell are the leaders. And at this moment 
we stand face to face with a rebellion against the authority of 
the government which, if permitted to succeed, will not only 



destroy the Union as it is, but engulph in the dark flood of 
lawlessness and anarchy every vestige of State or individual 
rights. 

It is against this fell spirit of disunion, whether showing it- 
self in armed rebellion at the South, or secretly undermining 
the pillars of the Republic, under the guise of political organi- 
zations, at the North, that we have banded together in this and 
similar leagues ; and it is but right, on such occasions, in mak- 
ing this public manifestation of our unalterable attachment to 
the Union, that we should recall, as I have attempted thus 
briefly, the purposes of the fathers of the Republic in founding 
it, and their solemn injunctions to maintain it inviolate for our 
remotest posterity. 

For, however painful and alarming the thought may be, it 
cannot be doubted that the advocates of the right of disunion 
are not confined to the seat of rebellion ; they exist in large 
numbers and to a dangerous extent in our midst. The man 
who is ignorant of this fact must have closed his eyes and ears 
to what is occurring around him. On all sides we meet the 
treasonable suggestion — now, in the political assembly, or in 
the privately circulated pamphlet ; in partisan speech, or still 
more partisan press ; one while abusing the name of democracy, 
sometimes desecrating the pulpit or the altar ; often putting on 
the guise of humanity by advocating dishonorable peace, and 
then again boldly appealing to sectional interests and State 
pride by calculating the advantages of alliances against the au- 
thority and outside the bond of the present .Union. Nay, 
more ; this rebellion has not only found sympathizing abettors 
at our doors, but men, respectable in numbers, in position and 
influence, are to be found in this city, who proclaim the Union 
actually dissolved by this rebellion ; that Pennsylvania is at 
liberty to assume her independent sovereignty, and to make 
new political alliances, as interest or ambition may dictate ; and 
who openly point to the period when a more complete control 
of the State will enable them to go through the modern ap- 
proved form of rebellion, by calling a State Convention, and 
resuming State sovereignty and independence. 



8 

So boldly have such projects been avowed, and so possible 
of accomplishment, that the man must be self-deceived and 
blind who does not perceive the precipice on the edge of which 
we stand. 

It is to oppose the spread of this dangerous heresy ; to coun- 
teract the influence of those who theoretically hold or practi- 
cally act upon it ; to arrest this alarming lapse from patriotic 
attachment to the Union ; to sustain the government, without 
reference to party, in the terrible struggle it is maintaining 
against those who have repudiated the Union and deny the 
authority of the Constitution; in short, to encourage in each 
other and in the community that sentiment of loyalty which 
honors our flag, upholds the Union, and reveres the Constitu- 
tion, that these Union Leagues are forming. 

The first Union League ever formed in this country was the 
Continental Congress ; distracted by the jealousies and jarring 
interests of States and sections, even when the common enemy 
of all was hurling her armies and navies upon them ; paralyzed 
in their heroic struggle for independence by the want of har- 
mony in counsel and efi"ort, they found safety and success in 
that Union which they then so wisely established. The second 
Union League met at Carpenter's Hall, in this city; when that 
convention of glorious statesmen and patriots assembled, who, 
in providing for a "more perfect Union," devised that unri- 
valed scheme of political wisdom and statesmanship, the pre- 
sent Constitution. 

What they -intended to be perpetual let us maintain invio- 
late ! Let loyal hearts and arms defend this Union, the very 
citadel of our liberty, against insidious treason and open 
rebellion, within its boundaries, and against all attack from 
abroad, whether in the shape of hostile armaments, or still 
more dangerous intervention ! 

Gentlemen, let us not shut our eyes to the fact, that the men 
of this day have as grave, as solemn, as pressing duties to 
perform; are bound by as high obligations, and are threatened 
by as imminent dangers, as were the patriots of 1781 and 1789. 
Then foreign oppression, domestic discords, public bankruptcy, 



9 

and a government too paralyzed to defend and maintain the 
liberties and independence already achieved — these were the 
stern necessities which compelled the men of those days to 
seek refuge in a united nationality. Now, rebellion and civil 
war, impending foreign interventions, threatened repudiation 
of public loans and faith, and the attempted recognition of 
that chief and most fatal of political heresies which would 
make our government merely an organized weakness, and 
leave it, it may be still, a giant in stature, bnt yet a giant 
without bones or muscles, just strong enough to stand and to 
grow, but powerless to defend itself or protect others — these 
are the still more pressing emergencies which summon us to 
the defence of our Federal nationality. 

Let us believe that the dangers which now threaten the 
existence of the Union are greater in number and magnitude 
than were those which opposed and delayed its formation ; and 
that so inestimable is its value to ourselves and our children, 
that no effort, no sacrifice, no contribution of time or means, 
can be too great for its preservation ! 

It is from such a belief, and from a sense of the insufficiency, 
we may rather say the failure, of all ordinary or merely poli- 
tical organizations to stay this ruin, that we now propose to 
lay aside former names and distinctions, to forget everything 
that has heretofore divided us, and to band ourselves together 
in this league for the Union, the sole test of admission to our 
ranks being unconditional loyalty — unconditional loyalty, 
without mental reservations in favor of any party success; 
without restrictions as to sections ; clothing itself in the ample 
citizenship of the nation, and acknowledging allegiance to 
nothing less than the whole country. 

Loyalty is then the only test; it is the single word we would 
inscribe upon our banners. And what is loyalty ? I ask the 
question, because some, who have discovered the possibility of 
obeying the Constitution without maintaining the Union, have 
started a refinement as to the meaning and nature of loyalty. 
Knowing more of its etymology than they do of the sentiment, 
they take exception to the popular use wliich applies it to the 



10 

government of the Union, and they contend it is only due to 
the Constitution and the law. It does undoubtedly manifest 
itself in, and cannot be said to exist without obedience to these; 
and, in this sense, may be as well displayed by the observance 
of the mere local ordinance or State law. 

But, certainly, we mean something more than this when we 
would describe or express the attachment of an American citi- 
zen to his government. Something more than obedience 
to law actuated the seventy thousand volunteers who re- 
sponded to the call of their country two years ago, when men 
from every peaceful pursuit in life, crowded the banks of the 
Potomac in defence of the national capital ; and during these 
two years of civil strife and bloodshed, of the million of brave 
and patriotic men who have voluntarily risked life and health, 
and endured all the privations and sufferings of the camp and 
the hospital, in the national cause, how many, think you, were 
influenced to do so by the mere principle of obedience to law ?■ 
Loyalty does, indeed, include obedience to law ; but it rises to 
a higher motive and principle of action ; it seizes upon the at- 
tribute which best represents the grandeur and the beneficence 
of the government — its unity ; and to that it attaches itself, 
calling the government itself by that name, and using it as the 
object of its affection and the bond of its fidelity. It is, indeed, 
obedient to the Constitution, but loyal to the Union, as the 
chief end and object of that sacred compact, and, therefore, the 
civil virtue which includes and represents all others. Let 
loyalty to the Union, then, be the representative civil virtue; 
just as virtue itself, originally but the name of one of the vir- 
tues, came to represent them all, from being regarded as the 
most excellent of all ! 

That this boasted fidelity to the law does not amount to 
loyalty in its true and highest sense, is made painfully evident 
every day of our lives by the men in our midst who, claiming 
to be strict in their observance of the Constitution, yet openly 
withhold respect from our flag ; who insist upon and perhaps 
obey the letter of the law, but would not willingly contribute 
a dollar or obtain a soldier to put down rebellion against a 



11 

lawful government ; the men wlio cling to " Magna Charta" 
and the "Bill of Rights," but whose hearts sink and whose 
faces fall at every success of the national arms, and who can 
be cheerful and exultant even upon the announcement of dis- 
asters that carry anguish to every loyal soul. 

Some such refinement as this, which would satisfy one's 
loyalty by mere obedience to the law, is well described in the 
prophetic figure uttered of old — "The bed is shorter than that 
a man can stretch himself on it, and the covering narrower 
than that he can wrap himself in it." 

But it is easier to illustrate than to define this highest of civic 
virtues ; it is better represented by noble acts than by words ; 
we can feel it better than we can express it. You can better 
understand it by looking at the flag of your country than by 
examining the dictionary. Among names Andrew Jackson 
calls up the idea better than John C. Calhoun. Thirteen was 
its sacred number when the original sisterhood of States, by 
common sacrifices, and in a common baptism of blood, sealed 
their devotion to constitutional liberty, and established the 
Union ; thirty-three was the number which represented the 
national growth when the rebellion fired its first gun. at our 
flag, and no truly loyal man will ever consent that the least of 
these shall be struck from the starry constellation. Continen- 
tal was the large and prophetic word which measured the future 
spread of the young republic, when this vast continent was un- 
explored ; and now that the Pacific coast sends its daily salu- 
tations to the Atlantic, through a broad belt of prospering and 
united commonwealths, no one State of all is large enough or 
imperial enough to comprehend the attachment to country of 
the loyal American heart. 

Let then loyalty to the Union — the phrase fashioned by the 
popular tongue — be our distinguishing virtue and watchword. 
He who has any conditions to make in his fealty to it, or is 
loyal to anything less than the Union, is not to be trusted as 
an expounder or defender of the Constitution. 

Let it be loyalty to the whole Union, as our children repeat 
it in their daily lessons, " bounded on the north by the British 



12 

« 

Possessions, on the south by the Gulf of Mexico and Mexico, 
on the east by the Atlantic, and on the west by the Pacific." 

Loyalty must be national ; it cannot be local. The intenser 
forms of State pride and sectional attachment which have de- 
veloped themselves at the South are too essentially selfish and 
jealous to comport with that more expanded and generous sen- 
timent which places country and its welfare above self, neigh- 
borhood, section or party. Think, for a moment, of loyalty to 
South Carolina ! What an inversion of the natural order of 
things ! It requires an efibrt of thought to descend to the 
comprehension of the idea. If it must be to a State, let it be 
to a State like Pennsylvania, always true to the Union ! As 
she was one of the first to come into the Union, and has been 
foremost in sustaining it, so she will be the last to abandon it. 
Imperial in extent, population and resources, still it is as one 
of the brightest stars in our national constellation that we glory 
in her. 

Even to Pennsylvania my feeling rises no higher than State 
pride ; beyond that a nobler sentiment attaches me to my 
country. I may be, I am, proud of my birth-right as a Penn- 
sylvanian, but my American citizenship is my more honorable 
and distinguishing title. 

Gentlemen, unconditional loyalty shall be our watchword : 
and our motto, in the language of the poet describing a kindred 
league — 

J " Whose only aim 

Is to preserve their country ; who oppose, 

In honor leagued, none but their country's foes." 



LORD LYONS IN COUNCIL 

WITH THE 

NEW YOKK: JDEMOCRA.CY. 



The British Envoy at Washington has hitherto had credit 
for a forbearance and impartiality with regard to our internal 
quarrel whereof Earl Russell has seen fit suddenly to disrobe 
him. A dispatch written by Lord Lyons to the Minister of 
Foreign Affairs on the 17th of last November (on the heel of 
the Democratic triumphs in this and other States) gives an 
edifying account of a visit by Lord L., to this city on the 8th, 
and of certain remarkable conferences had by him here with 
certain persons whom he characterizes as " the conservative 
leaders." He found those leaders " exulting" over their freshly- 
won triumph, and says : 

"They seem to be persuaded that the result of the elections would be 
accepted by the President as a declaration of the will of the people ; that 
he would increase the moderate and conservative element in the Cabinet ; 
that he would seek to terminate the war, not to push it to extremity ; that 
he would endeavor to effect a reconciliation with the people of the South, 
and renounce the idea of subjugating or exterminating them." 

Lord Lyons proceeds : 

" On the following morning, however, intelligence arrived from Wash- 
ington which dashed the rising hopes of the Conservatives. It was an- 
nounced that Gen. McClellan had been dismissed from the command of 
the Army of the Potomac, and ordered to repair to his home ; that he had, 
in fact, been removed altogether from active service. The General had 
been regarded as the representative of censervative principles in the army. 
Support of him had been made one of the articles of the conservative elec- 
toral programme. His dismissal was taken as a sign that the President 
had thrown himself entirely into the arms of the extreme radical party, 



14 

and that the attempt to carry out the policy of that party would be per- 
sisted in. The irritation of the Conservatives at New York was certainly 
very great ; it seemed, however, to be not unmixed with consternation and 
despondency. 

" Several of the leaders of the Democratic party sought interviews with 
me, both before and after the arrival of the intelligence of Gen. McClellan's 
dismissal. The subject uppermost in their minds while they were speak- 
ing to me was naturally that of foreign mediation between the North and 
the South. Many of them seemed to think that this mediation must come 
at last, but they appeared to be very much afraid of its coming too soon. 
It was evident that they apprehended that a premature proposal of foreign 
intervention would afford the Radical party a means of reviving the violent 
war spirit, and of thus defeating the peaceful plans of the Conservatives. 
They appeared to regard the present moment as peculiarly unfavorable 
for such an offer, and, indeed, to hold that it would be essential to the 
success of any proposal from abroad that it should be deferred until the 
control of the Executive Government should be in the hands of the Con- 
servative party. 

" I gave no opinion on the subject. I did not say whether or no I my- 
self thought foreign intervention probable or advisable ; but I listened 
with attention to the accounts given me of the plans and hopes of the Con- 
servative party. At the bottom, I thought I perceived a desire to put an 
end to the war, even at the risk of losing the Southern States altogether ; but 
it teas plain that it was not thought prudent to avoiv this desire. Indeed, 
some hints of it dropped before the elections loere so ill received, that a strong 
declaration in the contrary sense was deemed necessary by the Democratic 
leaders. 

" At the present moment, therefore, the chiefs of the Conservative party 
call loudly for a more vigorous prosecution of the war, and reproach the 
Government with slackness as well as with want of success in its military 
measures. But they repudiate all idea of interfering with the institutions 
of the Southern people, or of waging a war of subjugation or extermina- 
tion. They maintain that the object of the military operations should be 
to place the North in a position to demand an armistice with honor and 
with effect. The armistice should (they hold) be followed by a Conven- 
tion, in which such changes of the Constitution should be proposed as would 
give the South ample security on the subject of its slave property, and would 
enable the North and the South to reunite and to live together in peace 
and harmony. The Conservatives profess to think that the South might 
be induced to take part in such a convention, and that a restoration of the 
Union would be the result. The more sagacious members of the party 
must, however, look upon the proposal of a convention merely as a last 
experiment to test the possibility of reunion. They are, no doubt, well 
aware that the rnore probable consequence of an armistice would be the es- 
tablishment of Southern independence, but they perceive that if the South 
is so utterly alienated that no possible concessions will induce it to return 
voluntarily to the Union, it is wiser to agree to separation than to prose- 
cute a cruel and hopeless war. 



15 

"It is with reference to such an armistice as they desire to attain that 
the leaders of the Conservative party regard the question of foreign medi- 
ation. They think that the offer of mediation, if made to a radical Ad- 
ministration, would be rejected ; that if made at an unpropitious moment, 
it might increase the virulence with which the war is prosecuted. If 
their own party were in power, or virtually controlled the Administration, 
they would rather, if possible, obtain an armistice without the aid of foreign 
Governments ; but they would be disposed to accept an offer of mediation 
if it appeared to be the only means of putting a stop to hostilities. They 
would desire that the offer should come from the Great Powers of Europe 
conjointly, and in particular that as little prominence as possible should 
be given to Great Britain." 

There can be no doubt that this is a fair summary of what 
the Democratic chiefs here convened to exult over their victory 
said to Lord Lyons — certainly, of what he understood them to 
say and to purpose. And, in the light of this revelation, we 
ask the judgment of every candid mind on the pretense that 
they favor " a vigorous prosecution of the war," or desire the 
subjugation of the Rebels in arms. They manifestly cherish 
no such impulse, no such desire ; and ftll their professions of 
devotion to the National cause are the sheerest hypocrisy. That 
their sympathies are wholly with the Rebels, not at all with the 
upholders of the National authority, has been often evinced, 
but seldom more clearly than in this bulletin from one who, 
being a representative of British aristocracy, was naturally 
admitted to their inmost councils. 

We have here, also, an expose of the loyal Democratic pro- 
gramme for restoring the Union. Its essence is — Let the Union 
get down on its knees to the traitors fighting for its destruc- 
tion, make such changes in its Constitution " as would give the 
South ample security on the subject of its slave property," and 
this " would enable the North and the South to live together 
in peace and harmony." This is what our Democrats mean by 
" the Constitution as it is" — that is, as the slaveholders choose 
to have it transmogrified. Don't they wish they may get it ? 

From beginning to end of this remarkable dispatch, it is 
manifest that Lord Lyons is heart and soul with the enemies of 
our Government and sees wholly through their spectacles. 
Altering the Federal Constitution to suit the Rebel slaveholders 



16 

would in his view be a highly ' conservative' proceeding ; while 
to resist that change and insist on simple obedience to the 
* Constitution as it is' is in his view ' radical.' Every missile 
that can be raked from the gutters of Faction to throw at the 
heads of our lawfully constituted rulers is in his view respec- 
table and formidable, while nothing that is offered on the side 
of our Government and those struggling to uphold it seems to 
him worthy of any consideration whatever. He affords a fresh 
and striking proof of the fact that the aristocratic caste in Great 
Britain are in full sympathy with the slaveholding caste in this 
country, and would deprecate the overthrow of the latter as 
premonitory of their own downfall. We knew that the British 
Army and Navy officers passing through our city or touching 
along our coast were uniformly pro-Rebel ; but we did not be- 
fore suppose that their feelings were fully shared, or at least 
openly proclaimed, by the official representative of their Queen. 
Gov. Seward has the credit of setting the bad example of 
publishing his deplomatic correspondence with scarcely a fig- 
leaf of reserve. The fashion will have to be stopped, or we 
shall have the whole civilized world by the ears. Which of 
the Great Powers will do mankind a signal service by announ- 
cing that the confidential dispatches frequently passing between 
its Ministers abroad and the Foreign Office at home are hence- 
forth to be withheld from public scrutiny and comment, save 
in rare and peculiar exigencies ? There are few reforms at once 
so necessary and so feasible. 



reunion probable, and that the first result would be a combined attack on 
Canada. I do not share in these apprehensions." 

Then, to sum up all, this British Minister, under the influence of 
his consultations, says, " All hope of reconstructing the Union seems 
to be fading away, even from the minds of those most ardently desir- 
ing it." 

What a spectacle is presented in this solemn, official statement of 
this Minister to his masters ! Men claiming to be " Democratic 
leaders," doubtless citizens of this Republic, enjoying its blessings 
and its protection, and owing to it, accordingly, fidelity and allegiance, 
in private conclave with a foreign Minister, (and that foreign Minis- 
ter the Minister of Great Britain !) plotting the destruction of their 
own Government, and devising "plans," and expressing "hopes" for 
the success of an unhallowed rebellion against it ! ! If this Minister 
deserves, as he richly does, the severest punishment his Crovernment 
can devise for his insidiously combining with traitors to the Govern- 
meot to which he is accredited, to inflict on that Government what 
they all considered a death-wound, what punishment should be meted 
out to these so-called " Democratic " plotters against the nation's life ? 
Had the Tories of the Revolution and the Hartford Couventionists of 
the war of 1812 been discovered in the same acts of complicity with 
a foreign emissary, we all know what would have been their instant 
fate. But the extreme penalty is not required for the men now in 
question ; all that is wanted is, the disclosure of their names. The 
universal execration that would attend them through life would be 
their merited, as it would be their inevitable reward. Base, cringing 
suppliants at the feet of royalty, poor toad-eaters of a British lord, 
secret plotters against your country in its days of peril, cowardly sym- 
pathizers with the greatest crime of ancient or modern times, show 
yourselves — give us your names — that we may put on you the mark 
of Cain forever ! 

Democrats ! you spew out the impudent assumption of these men 
that they are your "leaders." 

Democrats I Americans, of all parties and of all nationalities! 
Lovers of liberty everywhere ! demand that these men come forth 
from their hiding places to meet the scorn, the contempt, the detesta- 
tion of each and every man of you ! ! 

It would be no violation of confidence on the part of Lord Lyons, 
under these extraordinary circumstances, to disclose the names of 
these persons, and thus in some degree palliate the great wrong in 
which he (we trust ignorantly and unwittingly) has participated ; and 
thus in a measure redeem from undeserved disgrace the name of 

DEMOCRAT. 



Iliw"""^ OF CONGRESS 

012 028 994 9 1 



